F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 PCmag review

Q:F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 PCmag review

Good Malware BlockingF-Secure also performed well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my standard collection of malware samples, the software wiped out 83 percent of them right away. By contrast, Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015$39.99 at Trend Micro detected just 66 percent of the same samples on sight.

I keep a second set of samples on hand, tweaked versions of my main collection. For each file, I change the name, append nulls to make the file size different, and modify a few non-executable bytes. Considering just the ones whose originals it did detect, F-Secure's real-time protection failed to recognize over 40 percent of the modified versions.

When I launched the few remaining samples, F-Secure's DeepGuard behavioral detection kicked in and blocked one as harmful. Overall, F-Secure detected 93 percent of the samples and earned 9.3 points, better than almost all products tested with this malware collection.

F-Secure's standalone antivirus doesn't include browser protection?that feature is reserved for the full security suite. In my malicious URL blocking test, which relies on a feed of very new malicious URLs from MRG-Effitas, F-Secure did wipe out 36 percent of the downloaded files. That's a bit better than the current average of 32 percent. Trend Micro has the current high score for this test, with 80 percent blocked, almost all of them at the URL level.

DeepGuardWhen F-Secure's cloud database can't identify a program as definitely good or definitely bad, DeepGuard starts monitoring that program. If DeepGuard detects that a process is attempting something naughty, it blocks the behavior and pops up a warning. You can override DeepGuard's decision, but I wouldn't advise it.

Behavior-based detection systems in some competitors, notably Comodo Antivirus 7, can interfere with valid programs. For a sanity check, I installed and ran 20 PCMag utilities that legitimately dabble in sensitive system areas. DeepGuard correctly left them alone. I did notice that it put my hand-written malicious URL testing on its monitor list, which is perfectly reasonable.

Simple and SolidEven so, F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 can be a very good choice, depending on your needs. It earned high scores in my hands-on malware blocking tests, and when the company submits it for independent lab testing, it scores well there, too. If you're looking for an antivirus chock full of bonus features, look elsewhere. But if you want an antivirus that's focused on the essential tasks of eliminating malware infestation and keeping out new attacks, F-Secure can do that job.

Full Article

RELEVANCY SCORE
200

Preferred Solution:
F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 PCmag review

I recommend trying the free service from Zip Cloud. It's currently our users' favorite backup and storage solution and will save you headaches down the line.

You can get it direct from this link http://goo.gl/rFYDxc. (This link will open the Zip Cloud homepage.)

Malicious URL BlockingThe big difference between F-Secure's suite and the standalone antivirus is the addition of browser protection. This component blocks access to malware-hosting URLs, and it did well in testing.

I started with a collection of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas, none of them more than four hours old. Some had already vanished, but I kept launching them one after another until I had results for 100 still-working URLs.

F-Secure's standalone antivirus lacks browser protection, but it did manage to wipe out 34 percent of the malicious payloads during or immediately after download. That's just slightly better than the average blocking rate among current programs.

So-So Phishing DetectionThe browser protection component also serves to steer users away from visiting phishing sites?fraudulent sites that attempt to steal login credentials. However, it wasn't nearly as effective as it was against malware-hosting URLs.

I started by collecting suspected phishing URLs from various sites. Then I launched each simultaneously on five test systems. Naturally one test system relied on F-Secure's protection. Another used Norton Internet Security (2014) at Amazon. The remaining three relied on the b... Read more

A:F-Secure Internet Security 2015 PCmag review

F-Secure is good, but it's quite expensive for an antivirus that offers fewer components, better use Emsisoft, Norton or Kaspersky.

During a full antivirus scan, G Data reports both time elapsed and time remaining. At one point, the sum of those two times exceeded 80 minutes. However, the scan actually completed in 48 minutes. That's a good bit longer than the current average of 28 minutes to scan a clean system. Some antivirus products speed subsequent scans by skipping known safe files. Comodo Antivirus 8, for example, re-scanned my test system in less than two minutes. Not G Data; a repeat scan took just as long.

Good Malware BlockingWhen I exposed G Data to a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out most of them right away, and eliminated a few more when I tried to launch them. One way or another, G Data detected 93 percent of the samples and scored 9.3 of 10 possible points. Few products have scored better in this test, though Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did manage a perfect 10.

As always, I also checked the product's reaction to a folder containing modified versions of the same samples. Each of the modified samples has a different filename and file size from the original, and a few non-executable bytes are also different. G Data didn't immediately recognize 22 percent of the samples whose originals were wiped out on sight. Interestingly, it did recognize several modified files whose originals weren't caught until I tried to launch them. Clearly there are multiple levels of protection going on here.

Pros - Good scores in independent lab tests and our hands-on tests. New high score in malicious URL blocking. Website rating, with details. Numerous bonus features.Cons - Phishing detection rate less than Chrome or Firefox alone. Firewall does not stealth ports in all cases. Most of the product's 12 services could be disabled by malware.Bottom Line - McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 earns a new top score in our malicious URL blocking test, and it gets good ratings from the independent labs. It comes with a raft of useful bonus tools, though the bonus firewall seemed a bit wobbly in our testing.Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2469309,00.asp

A:McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 PCmag review

i have red the review a few hours ago and the most disturbing thing for me is that mcafee can't protect it's self from malware.also the firewall isn't good but you can always use windows built in firewall.if they improve those components i believe more people will trust them because some components are very good such as web blocking(site adviser)

Hands-On TestingIn addition to checking scores with the major testing labs, I put each antivirus through hands-on testing. I start by opening a folder containing a collection of malware samples. The simple access that occurs when Windows Explorer gets file information for display was enough to trigger AVG's real-time protection. It detected 72 percent of the samples on sight and offered to remove them.

Next, I launched the samples that weren't wiped out immediately. Overall, AVG detected 79 percent of these samples and earned 7.8 of 10 possible points. That's definitely on the low side, but I give significantly more weight to the independent lab tests. My own malware-blocking test serves mostly to give me hands-on experience with each product's way of handling real-time protection.

One feature of AVG's Web TuneUp browser extension is Site Safety, which promises to warn you before you visit a "risky or dangerous website." Apparently Site Safety doesn't apply to URLs that point directly to malware programs; Site Safety didn't kick in at all during my malicious URL blocking test. However, of the 100-odd newly reported malicious URLs I tried, the real-time protection component wiped out 54 percent. That's better than the current average of 41 percent.

McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 holds the top score in this test, with 85 percent of the URLs blocked. Avast managed a respectable 72 percent.

Malicious URL BlockingThanks to a real-time feed supplied by MRG-Effitas, I have access to a continually updated list of malicious URLs. I use these to check how each antivirus product handles extremely new threats. Does it block access to the URL, wipe out the downloaded malware, or just sit there doing nothing?

Bitdefender completely blocked access to 18 percent of the live malicious URLs I used for testing, but didn't wipe out any of the downloads that got through. It might well have caught those on launch, but that's not what this test measures. I've run two dozen products through this test so far, each with URLs no more than four hours old. The average protection rate is 33 percent, almost twice what Bitdefender managed. I'll be interested to see how Norton AntiVirus (2014) and Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2014) do when it's their turn for this test.

Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart

Good Malware BlockingI rely more and more on the independent labs for in-depth antivirus testing, but I always need to do my own hands-on testing, to get a feel for the product's protection. To start, I opened a folder containing my just-gathered new set of malware samples. Bitdefender quickly and quietly wiped out 83 percent of those samples.

Next I launched the remaining samples and noted the antivirus's reaction. It completely missed several, ending up with an overall detection rate of 86 percent and an overall score of 8.... Read more

Very Good Malware BlockingAs with SuperAntiSpyware Professional 6.0, Panda's on-access scanning doesn't spring into action until you attempt to execute a file. Unlike SuperAntiSpyware, Panda did a good job blocking malware at launch. It deleted three quarters of the samples before they could execute.

A few of the samples did manage to launch; Panda caught some of those later in the process. Its detection rate of 86 percent is tied with Bitdefender for the best detection rate among products tested with my current sample set. Panda's overall score of 8.0 can't beat Bitdefender's 8.3 points, but it's better than the rest of the current group, includingKaspersky Anti-Virus (2015)'s 7.9 points.

Panda Free Antivirus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart

You'll note in the chart that AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014 and various others tested with my previous malware collection made a significantly better showing. That was a different set of samples, though, and the independent testing labs give very good scores to Panda, Kaspersky, and Bitdefender.

As part of my testing, I installed about 20 PCMag utilities. Panda's behavior-based malware detection identified a temporary file created by one of them as malicious, though when I looked at the detailed log it merely said "suspicious." I submitted the file to VirusTotal, to be sure it wasn't actually infected. All of the 53 antivirus engines hosted on VirusTotal gave it a clean bill of health... Read more

A:Panda Free Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

Does it differ from Panda Cloud Free?( I mean ,Are they two seperate products or this one is the new follower?)

Hands-On TestingTo get a feel for the program's protection, I challenged it with my collection of malware samples. Its real-time protection kicked in the moment I opened the sample folder, quickly eliminating 66 percent of the samples. Note, though, that F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 wiped out 83 percent of those same samples on sight.

Next, I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre. In several cases it reported the sample or one of its components as suspicious, in some cases with the warning "Please do not open this file unless you trust its source." That seems a bit weak to me?a user could accidentally choose to run malware detected in this way. I made sure to avoid that error.

With 89 percent detection and 8.7 points overall, Trend Micro is just behind F-Secure among products tested with this same malware collection. Note, though, that I give greater weight to ratings from the independent labs than to my simple hands-on test.

Trend Micro's Smart Protection Network gathers telemetry from millions of computers. Among other things, it identifies malware-hosting websites, and instructs your local antivirus to prevent access to those sites. Based on my testing, it really works. The test starts with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I simply launch each URL and note whether the product blocks URL access, eliminates the download, or does nothing.

Trend Micro detected 80 percent of the samples, almost all of them at th... Read more

I also tested Avira using hand-modified versions of the same sample set. For each file, I changed the name, appended nulls to change the file size, and tweaked some non-executable characters. Avira missed three of the tweaked files. However, it detected another two tweaked files whose originals it missed. I can't explain that.

After launching all of the remaining samples, I evaluated how well Avira handled them. Overall, it detected 76 percent of the malware samples and scored 7.4 points, quite a drop from last year.

Good Malicious URL BlockingIn the real world, you're more likely to encounter a brand-new malware attack via a malicious or compromised website, so I test for that ability as well. I start with a feed of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. After filtering out those that don't point directly to malicious executables, I try loading each one in a browser to see what (if anything) the antivirus will do.

Quite a few of the URLs were already defunct, despite being no more than four hours... Read more

A:Avira Free Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

Avira need to put some more effort because the competition is pretty high

Pros Extremely small and light on resources. Fast install, super-fast scan. Top marks in two independent lab tests. Perfect score in hands-on malware blocking test. Very good malicious URL blocking. Can control protected computers from Web console. Good phishing protection.Cons Requires Internet connectivity for full protection.

Bottom Line Two independent testing labs have given Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015) their top ratings, and it earned a perfect score in our hands-on malware blocking test. Add the fact that it's the smallest antivirus around and you've got a definite Editors' Choice.Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470312,00.asp

Definitely a ContenderBitdefender's antivirus technology routinely earns excellent scores from the independent testing labs, though it didn't do quite as well in my hands-on malware blocking test. It holds the top score in my phishing protection test, and its parental control system works across multiple Windows and Android devices. If its strengths match your needs, it can be a very good choice. However, it's not going to unseat Norton Internet Security (2014) as PCMag's security suite Editors' Choice.

Shared AntivirusAvast's lab test scores range from best to worst. It received AAA-level certification fromDennis Technology Labs and rated Advanced+ in two tests by AV-Comparatives. However, "crazy many" false positives caused it to fail the file detection test from that same lab. Bitdefender and Kaspersky generally take top scores across the board.

In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avast earned 9.0 of 10 possible point, better than most products tested using this same malware collection. Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015)earned a perfect 10 in this test.

My malicious URL blocking test uses newly-discovered malware-hosting URLs, typically no more than four hours old. When I challenged Avast with about 100 of these, it blocked all access to 29 percent at the URL level and eliminated another 43 percent during download, for a total block rate of 72 percent. That's quite good, though McAfee Internet Security 2015 managed to block 85 percent.

Good, Not GreatAvast Internet Security 2015 offers almost all of the expected suite components (parental control is the exception), but their effectiveness varies. I like the innovative home router scan; this is an area that most vendors overlook. And Avast offers plenty of other bonus features. The problem is, top suites just do a better job overall.

Shared AntivirusThis suite builds on the antivirus protection found in the standalone G Data Antivirus 2015. Please read that review for full details regarding the testing that I've summarized below.

West Coast Labs certifies G Data's technology for virus detection, and it received VB100 certification in all of the recent Virus Bulletin tests that included it. In the latest test by AV-Test Institute, G Data received 6 of 6 possible points for protection against malware and totaled 16 of 18 possible points. That's good, but Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) at Amazon and Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 scored a perfect 18. The other labs that I follow don't include G Data.

G Data also fared well in my malicious URL blocking test. When exposed to 100 newly discovered malware-hosting URLs, it prevented 51 percent of the downloads, in most cases by blocking the browser from all access to the URL. The current average protection rate for this test is 40 percent.

Real-time ProtectionFor some antivirus products, the minimal file access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is sufficient to trigger real-time protection. Avast waits until just before a program executes to run a real-time scan. In testing, it wiped out almost 80 percent of my malware samples immediately on launch.

Avast detected most of the remaining samples at some point as they attempted to install and run. In a couple of cases, it activated a powerful analysis tool called DeepScan. Avast also invoked DeepScan to make sure that a couple of my malware-testing programs weren't themselves malicious.

In one case, fortunately the last sample I tested, Avast requested a boot time scan for complete cleanup. That scan took almost an hour, and required my attention every so often to make decisions about the disposition of particular malware traces. You can launch a boot time scan at will, if you suspect the regular scan has missed something.

One way or another, Avast detected 93 percent of my samples, the same asF-Secure Anti-Virus 2015. However, because Avast allowed installation of some executable malware traces, its final score came out to 9.0 points, while F-Secure managed 9.3. The absolute winner among products tested with this sample set is Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015), which earned 10 of 10 possible points.

Avast's previous edition was among the first products exposed to my malicious URL blocking test. For many, many months, its... Read more

Shared Antivirus FeaturesThe antivirus component in this suite is almost the same as the free Avira Antivirus 2015. The main difference is that the free edition relies on a browser plug-in for detecting malicious and fraudulent websites, whereas the Pro edition filters such sites below the browser level. That's an important distinction, because the free edition doesn't currently offer a plug-in for Internet Explorer.

Avira doesn't participate in testing with all the independent labs I follow, but those that do test it generally give it good ratings. The only significant exception is a poor score in a test by AV-Test Institute that specifically measures the ability of an antivirus product to completely clean up a detected malware infestation.

In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avira didn't fare so well. With 76 percent detection and an overall score of 7.4 points (out of a possible 10), it's near the bottom.Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) earned the best score of products tested using my current malware collection; it managed a perfect 10.

As noted, the suite and free antivirus use different components to detect and block malware-hosting URLs, so I expected to see differing result in my malicious URL blocking test. Despite different styles of malicious URL detection and a completely different (but very new) set of test URLs, the two products earned almost identical scores, for a protection rate of 58 percent. That's... Read more

A:Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 PCmag review

Baloney. I used Avira to clean up an infected computer that was running Webroot. LSS, I don't have faith in this review.

When I challenged Trend Micro to protect a virtual machine test system from my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out 66 percent of them on sight. It whacked quite a few more when I tried to launch them. Its detection rate of 89 percent and overall score of 8.9 put it in between F-Secure Internet Security 2015 and Bitdefender Total Security 2015.

I tested the product's ability to block malicious URLs using newly-discovered URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. When initially tested, Trend Micro's 80 percent blocking rate for malicious URLs was a new high score. However, a few days later it was deposed by McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015, which blocked 85 percent. Both scores are impressive, given that the current average is 32 percent.Symantec Norton Security, tested simultaneously with Trend Micro, managed to block 51 percent.

A full scan of my standard test system took just 20 minutes. Because Trend Micro avoids re-scanning files already found to be safe, a repeat scan finished in less than a minute.

Trend Micro's impressive handling of malicious URLs also carried over to my test of its phishing protection ability. Its detection rate lagged just 4 percentage points behind that of Norton. Very few products come close to Norton's fraud detection rate.

Small Performance HitI wondered whether the additional installation of the password manager, safe browser, vault, and especially SafeSync would make this suite more of a resource eater than Trend Micro... Read more

Simple InstallationWhen you purchase F-Secure SAFE, you get a link to download a just-for-you installer with your license key embedded. You create an F-Secure SAFE account and proceed to make your first installation. You can choose to download and install on the machine you're using, send an email link to another device, or send the link via SMS.

Installation is quick and simple. Any time you want to use another of your licenses, you simply log in to the F-Secure SAFE online console and repeat the process?either download locally or send a link via email or SMS.

PC ProtectionInstalled on a PC, F-Secure SAFE is precisely F-Secure Internet Security 2015, with the tiny addition of a tray menu item that links to the F-Secure SAFE online console. Read my review of the suite for full details.

Very briefly, this suite offers good detection of malware-hosting URLs, but isn't as good at detecting fraudulent (phishing) sites. It earned good scores in independent lab tests and in my own hands-on tests. However, its parental control system is limited, and it lacks features found in other suites, including one found in its own previous edition.

Android ProtectionF-Secure SAFE for Android has a slick, spacious appearance. A row of icons across the bottom lets you flip between feature pages, or you can just swipe left or right. The antivirus component offers on-demand scanning, real-time protection, and scheduled scanning. You can also configure it to scan when the device ... Read more

Bottom LineThe antivirus components of F-Secure Internet Security scored high in our testing, aided by the suite-specific Browsing Protection features. However, the rest of its components don't make up a top-notch suite.

Full article: F-Secure Internet Security (2017)

A:F-Secure Internet Security 2017 Review by PCMag 3,5/5 stars

F-Secure is definitely not the best Internet Security Suite available for the price. It does ok but not the best in terms of detection rates & has very little extra features. I am not a big fan of the GUI or settings either but that's just me.

Still the LeaderMalwarebytes doesn't attempt ongoing, real-time protection. That's a job for your regular, full-scale antivirus. But if that full-scale antivirus won't install, or if malware defeats it, Malwarebytes is the go-to tool to solve the problem. Tech support agents from other antivirus companies rely on it; I've even heard agents pretend it belongs to their own company. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0 remains our Editors' Choice for free, cleanup-only antivirus.

Very Good Malware BlockingUnlike Emsisoft Emergency Kit, Emsisoft Anti-Malware includes a collection of real-time protection components. Certainly you'll agree, while removing a malware infestation is good, preventing it from ever happening is even better.

Real-time scanning activates any time a file is accessed, but different products define "access" differently. For most, the minuscule access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is enough to trigger a scan. At the other end of the spectrum, GridinSoft Trojan Killer, Ashampoo Anti-Virus 2015, and a few others don't scan until just before the file executes.

I thought at first that Emsisoft fell into the latter category, which is a pain to test. Then I found that the act of moving a file to a new location was sufficient to trigger a scan. You can also tweak the File Guard settings in either direction, setting it to scan on any access for thoroughness, or to only scan on execution, for speed.

Emsisoft detected and eliminated 79 percent of the samples in my malware collection when I copied them to a new folder. It got most of the rest when I tried to launch them. In a couple of cases, it popped up an alert recommending that I quarantine a file based on its behavior; I complied.

One way or another, Emsisoft detected 93 percent of my samples and scored 9.0 of 10 possible points, the best score of any product tested with this same sample collection. Tested with my previous collection, F-S... Read more

A:Emsisoft Anti-Malware 10.0 PCMag review

Petrovic said:

↑

View attachment 63201

Very Good Malware BlockingUnlike Emsisoft Emergency Kit, Emsisoft Anti-Malware includes a collection of real-time protection components. Certainly you'll agree, while removing a malware infestation is good, preventing it from ever happening is even better.

Real-time scanning activates any time a file is accessed, but different products define "access" differently. For most, the minuscule access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is enough to trigger a scan. At the other end of the spectrum, GridinSoft Trojan Killer, Ashampoo Anti-Virus 2015, and a few others don't scan until just before the file executes.

I thought at first that Emsisoft fell into the latter category, which is a pain to test. Then I found that the act of moving a file to a new location was sufficient to trigger a scan. You can also tweak the File Guard settings in either direction, setting it to scan on any access for thoroughness, or to only scan on execution, for speed.

Emsisoft detected and eliminated 79 percent of the samples in my malware collection when I copied them to a new folder. It got most of the rest when I tried to launch them. In a couple of cases, it popped up an alert recommending that I quarantine a file based on its behavior; I complied.

One way or another, Emsisoft detected 93 percent of my samples and scored 9.0 of 10 possible points, the best score of any product teste... Read more

Very Good Malware BlockingEmsisoft also turned in a very good performance in my own hands-on malware blocking test. Unlike many of its peers, this product's on-access scanning doesn't trigger simply because Windows Explorer displayed information about the file. However, when I copied my malware collection to a new folder it quickly eliminated over 85 percent of those samples.

When I launched the surviving samples, a couple of them triggered behavior-based detection, meriting verification by the Emsisoft Anti-Malware Network. The network advised quarantining one but gave the other a clean bill of health.

Either on sight or at launch, Emsisoft detected 97 percent of my samples and scored 9.5 of 10 possible points. Few have done that well with my current sample set, though Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus managed a perfect 10 points.

My malicious URL blocking test starts with a feed of newly discovered malware-hosting URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I simply launch each URL and note whether the product forbids access to the URL altogether, wipes out the malicious payload, or sits idly by. Even these very new URLs are often dead by the time I try them, so I continue testing until I have 100 valid samples.

Emsisoft's Surf Protection kept the browser from connection to 55 percent of the sample URLs. Unlike many, it does not display a warning in the browser. Rather, it pops up a notification and leaves the browser to display an error message. That's not as pre... Read more

A:Emsisoft Anti-Malware 9.0 PCmag review

Overall a positive review from Rubenking...although, it appears this time he did not try to install EAM 9 on an already heavily infected system. That is what, according to him, sank EAM 7.

However, Emsi's position is that you cannot protect an already infected system so getting EAM onto such a system is not part of their product/threat model.

His review confirms what I see on my W8.1 system from day-to-day. EAM/EIS 9 is a very good product.

Buy for Business, Not for HomeMy rating of "good" for Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Premium 2.0 is an average, stuck in the middle between excellent malware cleanup and poor malware blocking. Businesses who buy it should consider teaming it with a more effective real-time solution such as Editors' Choice AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014. For personal use, stick with the free edition.

Full Article

A:Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Premium 2.0 review Pcmag.com

Agreed with the last statement, For personal use, stick with the free edition.

A Good ChoiceEmsisoft Anti-Malware 11.0 gets good ratings from the independent labs that test it, and it did quite well in our hands-on malware blocking and malicious URL tests. It's highly configurable, so you can make it work just the way you want. However, its antiphishing abilities could use tuning, and in our testing its behavior alert system flagged only valid programs, no malware. It's a good choice, but not an Editors' Choice.

ZoneAlarm Anti-Ransomware analyzes all suspicious activities on your PC. It detects Ransomware attacks, blocks them and immediately restores any encrypted files. ZoneAlarm Anti-Ransomware is the result of years of research and development and offers the best Enterprise-Grade protection against Ransomware threats. It is fully compatible with all antivirus solutions.

​Auto File RestorationThe only anti-ransomware protection that immediately and automatically restores any encrypted files.File ProtectionDetects and blocks Ransomware threats, even those that other PC security solutions don?t catch.PC ShieldBlocks any malicious attempts to lock your PC and ensures you always have access to it.​Comments below.

A:ZoneAlarm Anti-Ransomware (30-day Free Trial) + PCMag Review

Not bad. The early video review here showed it fail terribly against RW. Apparently it has improved much from its earliest beta. It will be great to see it in the Hub!I did get to learn interesting bits about the ransomware protection of some other apps from the link too.

Could Be GoodThere's no question that Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) is the tiniest suite around, with the least impact on system resources. And it offers impressive antivirus protection, demonstrated by top marks in my own tests and independent lab tests.

However, it lacks a number of features found in most of its competition. There's no firewall, just extra support for Windows firewall. If you need spam filtering or parental control, this isn't the suite for you. But if your needs coincide with the features it does have, it can be a great fit.

Sub-Ratings:Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.Firewall: n/aAntivirus: Performance: Antispam: n/aPrivacy: Parental Control: n/a

Pros Installs AVG's security suite on unlimited PCs, antivirus on unlimited Android and Mac devices. AVG Zen tool monitors security of all your devices and allows remote fixing of problems. Less expensive than comparable products.Cons No security suite for Mac, just antivirus. Comparable products are more feature-rich.Bottom Line AVG Protection PRO lets you install a security suite on unlimited PCs and antivirus on unlimited Mac and Android devices. It costs less than similar products, but it also offers fewer features.Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2472440,00.asp

Effective AntivirusWebroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) is the tiniest antivirus around, and its installation and scanning are both super-fast. The mega-suite is slightly bigger, but it still takes about one tenth the disk space of the average suite. Read my review of the antivirus for full details. I'll simply summarize here.

None of the six independent labs I follow currently include Webroot in their regular testing, though Dennis Technology Labs will add Webroot in the first quarter of 2015. A private test by Dennis Labs earlier this year revealed that Webroot would have earned top-level AAA certification. Webroot was also one of just three product to pass in a test by MRG-Effitas.

Webroot's malware detection relies on a cloud service that analyzes program behaviors, not on antivirus signatures. On detecting an unknown process, Webroot starts journaling all its actions and watching for signs that it's malicious. If a process steps over the line, Webroot reverses all of its actions. Until a process gets the green light, irreversible actions like transmitting information to the Internet are suppressed.

I observed this feature in action; some of my malware samples initially seemed to get past the antivirus, but after a few minutes it started wiping them out. In the end it earned a perfect 10 points in my hands-on malware blocking test.

The suite also earned a very good score in my malicious URL blocking test. This test challenges each antivirus with 100... Read more

You get a boatload of features with Comodo Firewall 8, and they don't cost you a thing. It does the job of a personal firewall, and its Viruscope malware detection system has evolved impressively. And there's the hardened browser, virtual desktop, and program sandboxing, the feature list goes on and on. My one concern is the popup-happy behavior-blocking system, which really needs to evolve into something that doesn't rely on user interaction. When it does so, we'll raise the rating back up to 4.5 stars.

Even with this one worry, Comodo hangs on to our Editors' Choice badge for personal firewalls. It shares that honor with ZoneAlarm Free Firewall 2015.

Full Article

A:Comodo Firewall 8 PCmag review

Got to love the reviewer comment on the HIPS:

The HIPS system wreaked havoc on my attempt to install 20 PCMag utilities. These utilities necessarily hook into various Windows processes, and Comodo suspected some type of malfeasance for most of them. Only seven installed and ran without incident. All the rest triggered anywhere from one to dozens of popups. I always chose to allow the reported action and remember my answer. Even so, in a couple of cases the popups just never stopped coming. Well, I gave up at two dozen; I figure the average user would get frustrated even sooner.Click to expand...

However in my opinion, the reviewer nails one thing right:

My one concern is the popup-happy behavior-blocking system, which really needs to evolve into something that doesn't rely on user interaction.Click to expand...

Decent Malware BlockingIn my own hands-on malware blocking test, Comodo scored 8.3 points out of a possible 10. That puts it on par with McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 and just a hair behind Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015. Panda Free Antivirus 2015 earned 8.0 points in this test. However, Panda received excellent ratings from many of the labs, and I weight those scores higher than my own simple hands-on testing. Quite a few products, Avast Free Antivirus 2015among them, have detected all the tweaked samples.

Interestingly, all of Comodo's malware detection occurred the instant I opened my folder of samples. It quickly and silently wiped out 83 percent of the samples, without bothering to announce what it had done. When I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre, it didn't actively block any of them.

I also exposed Comodo to a folder containing hand-modified versions of the same malware samples. I tweaked some non-executable bytes in each sample, and also changed each file's name and size. I was quite surprised to find that my simple tweaking prevented Comodo's signature-based detection system from recognizing more than half of the samples. This might suggest that its signatures need to be more open-ended and less restrictive.

Poor Blocking of Malicious URLsOf course, in the real world you're very unlikely to simply open a folder containing malicious programs. If you encounter a malware attack, it will most likely come through a malic... Read more

ProsExtremely fast scan. Removed many malware samples. Free.ConsNo real-time protection. Missed older malware samples in testing. In testing, some files reported as quarantined were still present.Bottom LineMalwarebytes 3.0 Free aims to wipe out pernicious malware that gets past your regular antivirus, or prevents you from installing protection. But with no real-time protection it can't be your primary antivirus.more in the link above

This build adds a whole layer of extra protection from Cryptolocker-type malware. Kaspersky's System Watcher now looks out for suspect programs trying to modify user files, and immediately backs up the originals. If the suite finds the changes were malicious then not only will the malware be removed, but you'll get your original documents back, too.

There are limitations with this scheme. In particular, backups are deleted when Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2015 is closed, so if the threat isn't detected in the current session then you may lose some files. Still, it's a welcome step forward.

Elsewhere, there are the usual general improvements across the board: Kaspersky says Anti-Virus 2015 is faster, more lightweight and responsive than before.

All this is presented in a simplified, subdued interface. Plain buttons highlight four ma... Read more

Toshiba Laptop (Windows Vista Home Premium)Can anyone recommend or give some advice as to what they regard as the best free anti-virus please in 2015?

I've had Avast (Free) on my laptop for around two years now but I feel my pc might be infected and its not getting picked-up by Avast. I also have the Free version of Malwarebytes and its picks up the odd thing.

The reason for my suspecting something is up is my pc slows down after being used for a few hours. it gets slower and starts to freeze so I have to restart it and this seems to solve the problem. Is the slowing down due to a virus????

A:Solved: Best Free Anti-virus 2015?

Slowing down may be caused by a virus. but most times it is because you have too many programs that start up upon login. Go start 'msconfig' and see the startup tab. Uncheck everything except your antivirus and firewall. See if speed improves.

I use Avira Free.( http://www.avira.com/en/avira-free-antivirus) According to Virus Bulletin,( https://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index ) it has pretty good detection.

*And any other important criteria an anti-virus software program should provide?/ Someone could suggest

Thank a lot

A:Best anti-virus software for windows 8? 2015

We have discussed this subject many times in this forum.There is no universal "one size fits all" solution that works for everyone and there is no single best anti-virus. Every vendor's virus lab and program scanning engine is different. Each has has its own strengths and weaknesses and they often use a mix of technologies to detect and remove malware. In many cases choosing an anti-virus is a matter of personal preference and what works best on a particular system. You may need to experiment and find the one most suitable for your needs. Please read:Choosing an Anti-Virus ProgramHere are links to some recent BC discussion topics with opinions from other members:Looking for recommended anti-virus softwaresWhat is the best antivirus protection?What's the best premium security suite in the market currently?Recommend a good free antivirus programWhich antivirus and malware programs should I use together?Antivirus Solution?Here are links to polls about this very subject:Poll: Best Antivirus and FirewallPoll: Best Anti-Spyware/Anti-Malware/On-Demand ScannerMy personal recommendation is ESET NOD32 Anti-Virus if choosing a paid for program as it leaves a small footprint...meaning it is not intrusive and does not utilize a lot of system resources. Emsisoft Anti-Malware is also a good choice for the same reason and so is Kaspersky Anti-virus. If you don't want to pay then I would recommend avast! Free Antivirus or Bitdefender Anti-virus Free Edition.Keep in mind that all free Anti-vir... Read more

ProsExcellent scores from independent labs. Scores from very good to superb in our hands-on tests. Effective ransomware protection. Many bonus features including password manager, secure browser, and file shredder.ConsFull antivirus scan took longer in testing than most competitors.Bottom LineBitdefender Antivirus Plus 2017 combines top-scoring antivirus protection with so many bonus features it would almost qualify as a security suite.

Hands On With the AntivirusThe test results from the big independent labs are certainly useful, but I like to run my own tests, to get a hand-on feel for how each product works. The test starts when I open a folder containing my collection of malware samples. It's not uncommon for a security product to immediately wipe out most of the samples. Bitdefender Total Security 2015 and F-Secure Internet Security 2015 both wiped out more than 80 percent of the samples on sight.

Norton's approach is different, with much less reliance on simple signature-based detection. It wiped out 28 percent of the samples on sight, but blocked and quarantined most of the rest when I tried to launch them. With an overall detection rate of 89 percent and an overall score of 8.3, it's just a hair behind Bitdefender.

You'll notice in the chart that many products tested using my previous malware collection scored quite a bit higher. Since it was a different collection, scores aren't directly comparable. And I do give more weight to results from the independent labs.

Good Malicious URL BlockingMy malicious URL blocking test starts with a feed of newly discovered nasty URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I launch those that point directly to malicious executables, noting whether the security product blocked access to the URL, quashed the download, or simply did nothing. Despite being just a few hours old, many of the URLs are already no good. I keep at it until I have data for 100 ... Read more

A:Symantec Norton Security PCmag review

I do not like the bad detection of norton. Behavioral blocking and sonar is good but I like it when Antivirus detects even before executing.

Shared AntivirusAntivirus protection in this suite is precisely the same as what you get with ESET NOD32 Antivirus 8, so I'll just summarize here. Read the antivirus review for full details.

ESET's technology gets high marks from almost all of the independent labs. It's one of just a handful that participated in all 12 of the last 12 tests by Virus Bulletin and received VB100 certification every time. It got the top rating in tests by AV-Comparatives and Dennis Technology Labs. Only AV-Test Institute gave it a so-so rating.

ESET didn't fare nearly as well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. I run this test mostly to get real-world experience of how each product handles malware attack, but I still like to see a good score. ESET scored 7.3 of 10 possible points, almost the lowest among products tested with my current sample set.

On the other hand, it did an extremely good job of blocking downloads from newly-discovered malicious URLs. It blocked 81 percent of the downloads, some by blocking all access to the URL and others by halting the download. With 85 percent blocking, McAfee Internet Security 2015 is the only product that's done better.

Other Shared FeaturesESET's social media scan will check that you've got your Facebook and Twitter accounts configured for maximum privacy. Of course, if you want the public to see your tweets, maximum Twitter privacy may not be quite what you want. The scanner includes links to each service... Read more

Excellent Malicious URL BlockingI've been running my malicious URL blocking test since last November. I start with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I filter out those that don't point directly to malicious executables and then try launching each URL. Even though they're typically less than four hours old, many are already MIA. For the URLs that still work, I note whether the antivirus blocks access to the site entirely, blocks the malicious download, or does nothing.

avast! Free Antivirus 2014 was one of the first products to undergo this test, and for many, many months its blocking rate of 79 percent remained the top score. In the last couple weeks, that score has been thrashed repeatedly. Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015 blocked 80 percent, a new high score. But just days later, McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 leapt into first place with 85 percent.

ESET blocked access to 32 percent of the URLs and prevented malware download for another 49 percent. Its total blocking percentage of 81 percent doesn't beat the record, but it's respectably in second place.

Average System ScanESET defaults to what it calls Smart Scan for malware. I had to dig deep to find a way to launch an in-depth scan. I thought the scan was going to be quick, because the progress bar filled almost to the end in just a few minutes. However, it sat there at almost-done for quite some time. In the end, it took 26 minutes, precisely the current average.

Tried to download AVG Anti Virus 2015 since I suspect my computer has been infected with virus that are not detected by Avira (free anti virus in my computer) but I run into this setup error:

A file that is required cannot be installed because the cabinet file c:\ProgramData\MFAData\pack\basex.cab has an invalid digital signature. This may indicate that the cabinet file is corrupt.

Severity: errorError code: 0xC0070643Error message: General internal errorAdditional message: MSI engine: failed to install the product.@AVGMSI_Error1330A file that is required cannot be installed because the cabinet file c:\ProgramData\MFAData\pack\basex.cab has an invalid digital signature. This may indicate that the cabinet file is corrupt (0xC0070532).Context: ABG product installation, MSI action failed.

Tried to run AVG remover 32bit because I thought I had an earlier version of AVG on my system but still I get the same message.

Can somebody help?

Thanks.

A:Setup Error when downloading AVG Anti Virus 2015

Greetings logic123 and to BleepingComputer's Virus/Trojan/Spyware/Malware Removal forum.My name is Oh My! and I am here to help you! Now that we are "friends" please call me Gary.If you would allow me to call you by your first name I would prefer to do that. ===================================================Ground Rules:First, I would like to inform you that most of us here at Bleeping Computer offer our expert assistance out of the goodness of our hearts. Please try to match our commitment to you with your patience toward us. If this was easy we would never have met. Please do not run any tools or take any steps other than those I will provide for you while we work on your computer together. I need to be certain about the state of your computer in order to provide appropriate and effective steps for you to take. Most often "well intentioned" (and usually panic driven!) independent efforts can make things much worse for both of us. If at any point you would prefer to take your own steps please let me know, I will not be offended. I would be happy to focus on the many others who are waiting in line for assistance.Please perform all steps in the order they are listed in each set of instructions. Some steps may be a bit complicated. If things are not clear, be sure to stop and let me know. We need to work on this together with confidence.Please copy and paste all logs into your post unless directed otherwise. Please do not re-run any programs I suggest. If you encounter prob... Read more

Well I glad you figured out on your own what you needed because your one liner really didn't have any real details on what you wanted :/I'm sure your question sounded better in your head than what it reads Cheers.

Good, Not GreatQihoo 360 Total Security Essential 8.6 packs in more security-related bonus features than any other free antivirus I can think of. Those features would be a lovely addition to an excellent free antivirus. The problem is that Qihoo's core antivirus protection doesn't quite measure up. There's not much to go on from the independent labs, but its scores in our own malware blocking and malicious URL blocking tests were just average. And somehow going from the previous edition to this one, its antiphishing score went from near the top to near the bottom.

If Qihoo's many extras fill you with delight, you can go ahead and use it. But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices. All five of the independent testing labs that I follow include both Avast Free Antivirus 2016 and AVG AntiVirus Free (2016) in their testing, giving them good marks overall. Panda Free Antivirus (2016) includes a collection of bonus features that almost rivals Qihoo's. All three are Editors' Choice winners for free antivirus.

Full Article

A:Qihoo 360 Total Security Essential 8.6 PCMag review

"But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices", I feel like who did this test has an agenda.

Cons Hardly any results from independent testing labs. Doesn't include every feature of Kaspersky antivirus. No phishing protection. Behavioral detection flagged both good and bad programs.

Bottom LineZoneAlarm Free Antivirus+ combines a top-notch firewall with antivirus protection licensed from award-winning Kaspersky. This free program can be a good choice if you don't want a full-scale security suite.

Effective Malware BlockingPanda scored very well in my hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my current malware sample collection, it didn't do anything immediately. That's because Panda waits for a significant event like file creation or modification; it doesn't scan just because a process accessed the file. When I copies the collection to another folder, Panda got to work, quickly wiping out 86 percent of the samples.

It also caught some of the remaining samples when I launched them. Overall, it detected 89 percent of the samples and earned 8.8 points, the same as Kaspersky. Among products tested with this same collection, Trend Micro has the best scores, with 93 percent detection and 9.1 points.

Results from tests with my previous malware collection aren't directly comparable, of course, but you have to appreciate what Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did with that bunch. It detected 100 percent of the samples and earned a perfect 10 points.

My malicious URL blocking test doesn't rely on a pre-set collection of samples. Rather, I take the very newest list of malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas and attempt to download real-world malware samples. The antivirus gets credit for blocking access to the URL or for wiping out the file during or immediately after the download. I keep at this test until I have results for 100 very new malicious URLs.

As I proceeded with the test, Panda's stats stayed remarkably... Read more

A:Panda Free Antivirus (2016) PCMag review

I should not provide any questions for Panda cause they have already identical two flip side of a story in the test.